Posts by MeanMrMustard

95

Michael Brown verdict discussion policy - take II

by Simon in

i had originally thought that making the rules clear about what was and wasn't going to be allowed when discussing the michael brown verdict that we'd be able to avoid some of the unpleasantness that surrounded the subsequent trayvon martin trial discussions.. michael brown verdict discussion policy.

i had hoped that once the evidence came out there would not be as many people promoting opinions that contradicted it.

unfortunately, that appears to have been naive of me.

MeanMrMustard

Looks like some house members copied the "hands up don't shoot" stance on the house floor: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/lawmakers-ferguson-hands-up-113254.html

Good lord. *FACE PALM*

MMM

95

Michael Brown verdict discussion policy - take II

by Simon in

i had originally thought that making the rules clear about what was and wasn't going to be allowed when discussing the michael brown verdict that we'd be able to avoid some of the unpleasantness that surrounded the subsequent trayvon martin trial discussions.. michael brown verdict discussion policy.

i had hoped that once the evidence came out there would not be as many people promoting opinions that contradicted it.

unfortunately, that appears to have been naive of me.

MeanMrMustard

@Pacopoolio

I think what is being said is that you can bring out topics concerning police militarization all you like. Also, you can make arguments about sociological conditions of the blacks, how they are stuck economically, and we can all have a fun debate about that (or all agree :) depending on what is said).

But your position, as you stated: "we need reform in the legal system and police training and some way to monitor police better so it's not just one person's word against the other all of the time and so that so many unarmed people stop getting shot, see the flaws and issues with this case to see why."

You can't point to this case because it is a bad example. MB was shot because of his actions, and DW was justified in shooting him. This case can't be about police militarization. After all, it was a single cop (without a swat team) and a single gun (which was almost stolen from DW). If you use MB's case as an example of what is wrong with police, then you are implying that DW did something wrong. In this case, the evidence seems to show he did everything right given MB's actions.

MMM

95

Michael Brown verdict discussion policy - take II

by Simon in

i had originally thought that making the rules clear about what was and wasn't going to be allowed when discussing the michael brown verdict that we'd be able to avoid some of the unpleasantness that surrounded the subsequent trayvon martin trial discussions.. michael brown verdict discussion policy.

i had hoped that once the evidence came out there would not be as many people promoting opinions that contradicted it.

unfortunately, that appears to have been naive of me.

MeanMrMustard

@Simon:

What if the WTB&TS wins its appeal in the Candice Conti case? Are we obligated to agree with the court (in regards to our posts on this site) in such a scenerio? What about discussing Supreme Court rulings that we may disagree with? I am not trying to give you a hard time - I agree with your position on MB. But I am worried the rule has far reaching consequences.

MMM

551

Officer Wilson not indicted in killing of Michael Brown

by Simon in

after a thorough investigation and weighing of the evidence the grand jury has decided not to indict the officer.. the reaction so far seems as predicted - people refuse to accept that the result represents justice despite claims that is what they wanted.. there is now violence and vandalism, including gunshots.

let's hope the police contain the troublemakers.. .

MeanMrMustard

@Pacopoolio:

Thanks for the response. I have little time to actually post anymore. When you first responded, it was Thanksgiving, and I had to head over to the in-law's house for Thanksgiving dinner... err, I mean ... since my FIL is an elder, it wasn't really that. Don't worry, we had ham instead of turkey, so no need to call the elders... the other elders, that is. :)

Now for your responses:

This shows a complete lack of understanding of social conditioning.

I don't think it shows any lack of understanding. First, notice my response had nothing to do with social conditioning. It was purely underscoring a statistical falacy that has been repeated over and over ad-nauseam in order to justify more legislation - legislation that will not work and has never worked. It was Designs that stated "Women in the private professional sectors earning 30% less than a man doing equal work..." This was stated after a plethora of comments trying to underscore all the social and economic inequalities in the world, in a thread about MB, after repeated attempts by some other posters to get him/her to just state the point in a clear fashion. It is not hard to see what Designs was pushing for.

There is no -one reason-. This is just basic, basic, basic sociology; first level classes.

Go back and read my comment again. The very idea of my comment was to underscore the very same idea you make above, except it had more of an economic slant than a sociological one. The statistic of "women make 30% less than men for equal work" is calculated by taking women as an aggregate, and then attributing "equal work" and the average wage to the entire group. In other words, it is a falacious generalization, most likely created to prop up more government intervention into a "failed" market. However, when you realize that the income gap comes directly from some of the free choices made by women, then this horrible moral injustice vanishes. In other words, there are other causes, there is no "-one reason-" for this, and more importantly, none of the reasons for the income gap has anything to do with an effort by society to hold women down. Because women have choices, and because they have the babies (biological fact), women tend to leave and enter the work force with huge gaps in between jobs. Also, they tend to choose vocations that will work well with a family, or they get part time work, which would of couse pay less. Or choose benfits over wages. It has been shown that if you take men vs. women, in the same job, with the same number of years, no gaps, similar accomplishments, no kids, etc., the gap goes away and sometimes women make more. I'll post one source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_pQ7KXv0o0.

But now onto your sociological comments:

AGAIN, there are a huge mix of conditions that create conditions like the wage disparity. A HUGE condition, that you completely seem to have missed, even though it's pretty obvious, is that, from a young age, girls are conditioned to be more meek and unassertive than males, combined with a double standard of women that act assertive as compared to males, that makes them less likely to demand higher pay and career advancement.

I am not sure if I accept your generalization about little girls being taught to be meek. But suppose I do, and suppose we change "meek" to "submissive" (because meekness doesn't necessaily imply being a push-over), I don't think it would be a "HUGE" condition, like you state. After all, if you can remove this huge income gap by considering other factors (it depends more on a family, marriage, kids, etc), then this type of behavior can't be statistically significant. Therefore I would change your "HUGE" to a "really tiny". Further, it is not the case that wage increases come from "asking for a raise" alone. Most of the time it is because another employer will bid up your wage and draw you off. This market force has very little to do with meekness.

This isn't high level stuff - it's just like people just completely ignore the conditioning and brain development that creates the adult, that happens from 0-16, and think that everyone shares the same privilege as themselves. This doesn't take college to understand, it's just dropping the ego, and realizing that what made you, you, is based on a combination of factors from the outside that hit you throughout your life, the most important, being in childhood.

Earlier in this and other threads, you have people making assertions like, "They were given horrible diets as children, stifling their brain development and screwing with their decision making, but why didn't they make the same choices as middle class white male, they had all the opportunities in the world!"

Who says I do not understand this? It is completely obvious that there are differences among people. Some people will have good upbringing, some will not. Some will have good childhood conditions, some poor. Some will be born physically fit, and some will be born deformed. This is life, and nobody, seems to be denying this.

But - so what? Would you say that because a child like MB may have grown up in a poor neighborhood, laws should not apply equally in his case? Should they be "relaxed" for him? Are we supposed to say, "Well, he didn't eat right as a child, and look! - his parents weren't that great, therefore we need to give him some chances when it comes to theft and assult."? If you are really saying this, and I hope you are not, then think of the incentives this will create among the community.

Just like women get paid less (on aggregate) because of their life choices, MB was shot because of his choices. It is not right to say, "MB made poor choices because of XYZ, THEREFORE, if he attacks an officer, threathens the officer's life, it is unlawful or even improper to shoot MB." I simply don't think your sociolocal argument matters - you attack a police officer and threaten his (or her) life, you can be lawfully shot. Actually, I would say this about anymore, police officer or not. You attack someone with clear intent of hurting/killing that person, and that person has a gun, and you are shot dead - that is a consequence of your choice. We learned this with TVM.

MMM

551

Officer Wilson not indicted in killing of Michael Brown

by Simon in

after a thorough investigation and weighing of the evidence the grand jury has decided not to indict the officer.. the reaction so far seems as predicted - people refuse to accept that the result represents justice despite claims that is what they wanted.. there is now violence and vandalism, including gunshots.

let's hope the police contain the troublemakers.. .

MeanMrMustard

@designs:

Women in the private professional sectors earning 30% less than a man doing equal work...

False. If this were really true, you would see businesses firing men left and right to hire women in order to realize a 30% savings on their highest expense - mainly wages. It is this type of ridiculous talk that feeds the issues in this thread. For some reason you can't see past social issues as the causes of everything. Everything stems from social injustice. Why can't you see other causes? In the case of this thread, for you MB was shot because he was black. In the case of women, well they are paid less because they are women. In reality, MB was shot because he attacked a police officer. And women are paid less because they leave the work force to take care of a family, or choose to go into a differing fields than men. Pay no attention that when you factor out life variables, women often get paid more.

MMM

20

Biblical Injunction To 'Spare the Rod' And Spoil the Child' or 10 Reasons Not To Hit Your Child

by frankiespeakin in

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltoyjvslwgg.

http://www.naturalchild.org/jan_hunt/tenreasons.html.

in 37 countries 1 around the world, it is illegal for a parent, teacher, or anyone else to spank a child, and 113 countries prohibit corporal punishment in schools.

MeanMrMustard

The Family Guy proposed an explanation of Hitler's anger toward Jews that seems to make a lot of sense...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTO6fAJf1GM

MMM

176

JW refuses to provide wedding stationery to Gay couple

by KateWild in

i was outraged at this and had to post it.. http://jehovahswitnessreport.com/blog/jw-refuses-to-provide-wedding-stationery-to-gay-couple.

i think she is a hypocrite and i bet she sells her invites to fornicators, or does she ask them if they are having sex before marrige, before she takes their money?.

i was never like this when i was a jw, it's even more disturbing that she is going to ask her elders what to do.

MeanMrMustard

@LisaRose and DJS:

I’ll go through your questions, LisaRose, a little bit later when I have time. But first I have to address something. It has already been addressed in my previous posts.

LisaRose wrote:

Is it because you feel being gay is a choice? If so, what scientific evidence do you have to back that up? I think that this is only under discussion because some people find homosexuality personally repugnant.

and DJS wrote:

You are simply trying to cloak your hatred behind faulty rationale, just like all of the other AOWM who aren't happy unless the world looks as they desire it: white, male, entitled with everyone else falling distinctly beneath them in the pecking order.

I wrote the quote below just one single post back (look on pp 7):

First of all, I don’t hate homosexuals. I actually don’t care at all. I have a firm belief that government should stay out of the private contracts of individuals. To me that means if a gay couple wishes to enter into a marriage contract, great. It also means that if a group of people wish to enter a polygamous relationship, great! I honestly don’t have a problem with it. Read that again if you get the urge to claim I am full of hate.

Let me add to that, in case I wasn’t clear enough. I am an atheist and a libertarian. The WT has not caused me to hate gay people. In fact, if a man decided to have sex with another man, and then (out of sheer adventure) add a women, a goat, and a horse to the mix - I don’t care. My only lament would be that perhaps the goat and the horse, if give a choice, would run away. Other than that, I don’t care.

As with most of the political discussions that I get into, we have to get past a set of accusations stating that I am either parroting Fox news, or have some sort of white supremacist agenda. None of those are the case. I see a lot of social issues making inroads into natural rights. When JWN posters call on governments to somehow making shunning illegal, I end up on the side of the WT, not because I like the WT, but because that would undermine freedom of association. In this instance I am making the case for private property rights, not because I think discrimination is right, but because I feel the erosion of private property has dire consequences and sets a bad precedent. It is the same with proposed "hate speech" laws - as if hate speech is somehow different thatn free speech.

MMM

176

JW refuses to provide wedding stationery to Gay couple

by KateWild in

i was outraged at this and had to post it.. http://jehovahswitnessreport.com/blog/jw-refuses-to-provide-wedding-stationery-to-gay-couple.

i think she is a hypocrite and i bet she sells her invites to fornicators, or does she ask them if they are having sex before marrige, before she takes their money?.

i was never like this when i was a jw, it's even more disturbing that she is going to ask her elders what to do.

MeanMrMustard

@LisaRose:

No business owner has to be in business, that is a choice.

Any no gay couple has to get their cake, photographs, or invitations from a business that does not wish to provide them. They too have the choice to move on to a shop that does.

The government is simply saying that if you choose to run a business that serves the public, you must not discriminate on the basis or race, religion or sexual orientation. You may not like that, and yes it is limiting your freedom, but it is not slavery, far from it.

I disagree. The reason slavery is morally wrong derives from private property rights - the most fundamental property right. One human can’t own another because each human has, from birth, the natural right of ownership of his or her body and the fruits of the labor resulting from that ownership. When you force someone to work in an endeavor that is not voluntary, it is the very definition of slavery.

It is not about me ‘not liking it’ or just ‘limiting my freedom’. It is not even about hate. It is about eroding a fundamental natural right of human beings. This shouldn’t be sacrificed to try to “fix” the jerks of the world through law.

A business owner could choose a different business, could choose not to be in business or choose to comply with the law, even if it is distasteful to them.

The sword has two edges: the gay couple could just go to another business. In fact, in the NM photographer example, they did find a new photographer. Again, I agree that those business owners that deny their services on the basis of color or sexual orientation are jerks. But we can’t throw the baby out with the bath water. We shouldn’t start a precedent (law loves to work off of precedent) that actually attacks fundamental rights.

You seem very knowledgeable about the law, so I am surprised that you think this is just the same as discrimination on the basis of race, religion or sexual orientation. Antonio chose not to work for someone, but it was not because of her race, religion or sexual orientation, so it does not violate the anti discrimination laws. You could say no one was criticizing him for it, but I doubt that is true, you yourself are criticizing him. If I were him I would have taken the job and used my time to find out why she believed that way and given her my viewpoint. So, he may be wrong, but it is not discrimination, at least when it come to the law. False equivalency.

This isn’t about the law. It is a philosophical issue. On what basis, for what reason, does owning a business suddenly mean that the owners are to relinquish private property rights, not only to their business but also to their very labor? If you are saying that just the sheer action of providing the community with a service or good constitutes a relinquishing of these rights, then you are just a hop-skip-jump away from public ownership of the means of production.

The example is not false equivalency. Both are discrimination on ideological grounds.

The anti-gay photographer is saying: I don’t want to serve you because I believe X.

The gay hair dresser is saying: I don’t want to serve you because you believe X.

….. where X is a religious belief that being gay is wrong.

The hair dresser and the anti-gay photographer are both exercising their right to private property. Nothing wrong with either of them. I was not criticizing Antonio, I was agree with him.

The government has discrimination laws in place for a reason, and it only applies to those particular protected classes. You may not like it, you may feel people should be able to do what they want, but I personally believe they are good laws, put in place for a reason. I don't want to go back to a world where gay people couldn't live openly and where black people could not eat in certain restaurants. I believe having these laws has helped society to move in a more positive direction. If you disagree, you should work towards getting the law changed.

What is that reason? To change people morally? If people are to be punished for being jerks, the market will punish them. They will naturally have to pay for their discrimination, as there will be many willing businesses ready to compete. This if far more preferable to stripping away private property.

MMM

112

Supreme Court ruling- refusing to photo gay wedding is discrimination

by SadElder in

according to bloomberg news:.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2014-04-07/wedding-photographer-rebuffed-by-top-court-on-same-sex-ceremony.

"the u.s. supreme court turned away an appeal from a new mexico wedding photographer found to have violated a state anti-discrimination law when she refused to take pictures of a commitment ceremony for a same-sex couple.. the photographer, elaine huguenin, argued unsuccessfully that she was being unconstitutionally forced to convey a message conflicting with her religious beliefs.

MeanMrMustard

DJS,

Alright bitcches, listen up. Professor DJS is going to give you an overview of how economics and ethics work together in modern day capitalistic countries. And for those of you who wonder, yes, I have studied both subjects at the Master’s level and taught, for several years, both subjects at the college level.

Ok. Nothing like an appeal to authority to give everyone the proper perspective.

Organizations and businesses are egoist, which means their decisions are typically based on self interest and that this is just and proper. Profit is not a dirty word, for example. Capitalism was built on this, and it works well – to a point.

“Egoist” is an odd way of describing the profit motive. Businesses are, and should be, concerned about profit, as you point out. In doing so, in order to gain profit, businesses have to satisfy the wants and needs of others. They indeed are concerned about their own self-interest, but they can satisfy that self-interest only by serving others. Businesses don’t isolate and focus solely on themselves. They must focus on the customer in order to focus on themselves. That is, unless they get some special privilege from the government, which is the real problem most of the time.

The U.S. government rests on the foundation of the Constitution (life liberty and the pursuit of happiness and general welfare for all), and operates typically in a utilitarian manner, (for the common good), which means that actions should be directed toward achieving the greatest happiness for the greatest number of individuals, or all of society, and would seek a balance of justice, freedom and fairness. The Constitution (which was a revolutionary document crafted by visionaries) is predicated on these concepts.

You reference the Constitution and you make specific reference to “life liberty and the pursuit of happiness” (in Declaration of Independence), and then jump right to the General Welfare clause (in the Constitution) for justification for what is about to come next. On this point, I am worried. The General Welfare clause does not mean that anything goes as long as there is sufficient political support. If it meant this, why write the rest of the Constitution, which limits the power of government to specific enumerated powers?

Balancing these two views is the skill-set which makes great countries. Both are correct. One isn’t ‘right’ and one isn’t ‘wrong.’

Hang on there. Applying the General Welfare clause to mean “anything goes” is most definitely incorrect.

Governments in capitalistic countries seek to create a thriving business environment for a strong economy while balancing the need for regulation (environment, social, etc.), justice and fairness for all. But governments, according to Adam Smith’s perfect model, shouldn’t directly support or subsidize businesses, unless those businesses impact the country’s ability to feed and protect itself. Otherwise, failing businesses should be allowed to fail. Textiles? Let them go to Mexico and replace textiles with semi-conductors. Banks? Let them fail and be absorbed by other banks. Chrysler? Let it go the way of the wind and see what type of Phoenix, more beautiful and efficient, is re-born in its place. The recent bailout of the banks deemed to be TBTF (too big to fail) was more political response than reality. Other banks would have absorbed the failed ones, and the economy would have rebounded stronger for it. But many weren’t able to accept the short-term political and economic impact.

I agree, the bailouts were politically motivated. And the problems were originally caused by political policy as well.

That’s the way Adam Smith envisioned a perfect economic model. He was right. But we humans – and our congressmen/women - don’t want the textile industry to go away if we depend on it for food or political power. We don’t want Chrysler to fail if we work for Chrysler or within the supply chain. And so on. The egoist, some of which rail against government controls, etc., seeks assistance from the universalist when they need it (bail me out, subsidize me, build a wall around me, keep those mean Chinese away, increase tariffs, etc.). As expected. The egoist will always think of themselves first and last.

The “egoist” should be told “no” from the government. And in fact, the government shouldn’t have the power to even say “yes” … period. The fault is not in the profit motive, the fault is that special interests are able to get an audience with the government.

This is one reason why it is ultimately absurd to say that special interests (the businesses seeking unfair advantage), gaining government audience (creating a supposed “balance”), has anything to do with the General Welfare. Even if the Constitution could be read that way, businesses that are able to use the rule of law to gain a competitive advantage do the exact opposite - they sacrifice general welfare for special interests. If you are concerned about general welfare, then the first thing you should be want to do is remove the government from the market.

The egoist (businesses) also seeks assistance from the universalist (government) by lobbying for and demanding better roads, schools, airports, utilities, etc. to help its business thrive. So it comes off as more than a bit hypocritical for a business, a completely egoist enterprise, to think it can serve only who it wishes, especially when it has asked and gotten so much from the government – which has a competing interest of the common good for all – that has helped make their business thrive. And how many of you haters have or have had government backed school and/or home loans, lived in subsidized housing, were on food stamps, welfare, WIC, worker's comp, etc., etc.. To paint with such a broad brush about the mean ole violent government, especially when one has benefited from it so much, is hypocritical.

Some businesses do lobby government, but it is usually the ones that can’t compete in a free market and need the rule of law to provide some competitive advantage. Again, the government should say “Sorry, this is beyond our scope of power”. But not all businesses seek government. Most want government to get out of the way because it is government that is giving other businesses an unfair advantage.

On a side note: it is a bit absurd to think that private business can, without central planning, produce cities of tall skyscrapers, and yet, only the state could actually produce a flat slab of asphalt for cars to drive on.

But putting all that aside for a moment, and assuming that the government is the only entity that could produce roads, even though I do not agree, how does that buy away the private property rights of the business owner? Are you saying that because society as a whole (and this is debatable too) has decided to collectively impose a tax to produce roads, a tax that the business owner pays too, it means that a business owner actually doesn’t own the business? After all, only a business with private property rights (the right to do what they choose with their property) would be able to refuse to provide service to gay couple, a black person, a white person, a yellow person, polygamous groups, or anything else, for whatever reason. I would ask, by what principle do you claim private property rights can be undermined, and what are its limits? If you are to say that a business owner must serve a person he/she doesn’t want to serve because of being gay or black, what logically prevents you from forcing the business owner into servitude for any number of other reasons?

I have seen several other responses on this thread indicating that since the business services the public, the public aught to have some say in the matter. Since all businesses seek voluntary exchange with customers (the public), I guess that would mean that all businesses are not privately owned. With no clear cut dividing between what the “public” (i.e. government) can do and can’t do, there is no real private ownership.

Those businesses which discriminate against others, even or especially based on their own peronal relgious beliefs, are on very shaky ground when it comes to the U.S. egoist/universalist capitalistic environment and the U.S. Constitution. To try to hide behind religion is a sham, and the courts have consistently upheld the rights of all citizens when they faced such discrimination. Courts in state after state are ruling that discriminating against gays is unconstitutional and numerous anti-gay marriage laws have been overturned (many of these decisions are currently stayed based on appeal).

This is true. Many courts are on your side of the argument. I think they are wrong… Not in regards to the morality of discrimination, mind you. I completely agree with the sentiment. I think they are wrong on Constitutional grounds, on the grounds of eroding private property rights. If you are a business owner and you refuse service to a gay couple or to a black man or a yellow man, I feel you are a jerk. But even the greatest jerk in the world should not be made to enter involuntary servitude. Think about it, you are forcing, by law, someone to serve people he/she doesn’t want to serve. How is this any different than the slavery you wish to reject?

This “right” you are asserting is a “positive right”, which isn’t a right at all, it is an entitlement. Ultimately it will conflict with actual true “negative rights”. If you are unsure of the difference, this man explains it very well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXOEkj6Jz44

Follow it through logically: The gay couple in New Mexico, for example, were not just demanding a positive right to service. They were demanding a positive right to QUALITY service, equal service. It is logical that if we are going to force someone to service an individual or group he/she doesn’t want to serve, most likely, the performance will be much poorer than if the exchange were voluntary. So based on the current direction of all the courts, would the gay couple have yet another claim against the photographer? Would they be able to now claim that discrimination was still in play here because they received poor quality pictures? But it gets worse than that even. What would happen if the disgruntled photographer were to wear a T-shirt to wedding that states, “I don’t agree with gay weddings”? The wise court would have to step in again, because otherwise, surely there would be discrimination. Public accommodation must be satisfied. But what have we limited now?

Deal with it haters.

Nothing like poising the well to put everything in perspective.

Let’s try this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/antonio-darden/

Antonio Darden was a hair dresser for Governor Susana Martinez, also New Mexico. A few years back, he decided on ideological grounds to refuse service to the Governor. He was gay, and the Governor was opposed to same sex marriage. As you can see in the link, Antonio was praised. Nobody ever mentioned, “Hey, you have a business that serves the public, and your beliefs don’t matter, you still have to serve the Governor.” Both the photographer in NM and the hair dresser in NM exercised their private property rights.

Don’t get me wrong, the hair dresser was well within his rights to do that. But don’t you see the legal double standard? One person’s private property is undermined, the other is upheld. Based on what? On whether or not the person’s social views were in sync with the popular view. As mrhhome said “... it is a really, really bad precedent…”

MMM

176

JW refuses to provide wedding stationery to Gay couple

by KateWild in

i was outraged at this and had to post it.. http://jehovahswitnessreport.com/blog/jw-refuses-to-provide-wedding-stationery-to-gay-couple.

i think she is a hypocrite and i bet she sells her invites to fornicators, or does she ask them if they are having sex before marrige, before she takes their money?.

i was never like this when i was a jw, it's even more disturbing that she is going to ask her elders what to do.

MeanMrMustard

DJS,

I started writing this response and the thread grew quickly. I notice that you posted your response from another thread, one that I had been involved with as well. However, I was unable then to respond due to time constraints. I will respond now, and in the other thread.

You assume opponents of your view are haters. I submit that this is just a way for you to label those opposing your view without actually addressing the substance and logic. I also noticed that the stand-by slander of “parroting Fox News” was brought out a couple of times. Another way of dodging. I can’t speak for mrhhome, but I don’t watch Fox, and I’m pretty sure they don’t say what I’m about to write.

First of all, I don’t hate homosexuals. I actually don’t care at all. I have a firm belief that government should stay out of the private contracts of individuals. To me that means if a gay couple wishes to enter into a marriage contract, great. It also means that if a group of people wish to enter a polygamous relationship, great! I honestly don’t have a problem with it. Read that again if you get the urge to claim I am full of hate.

But there are other reasons why these court decisions are a bad idea - reasons that have little to do with sexual orientation, or race.

Alright bitcches, listen up. Professor DJS is going to give you an overview of how economics and ethics work together in modern day capitalistic countries. And for those of you who wonder, yes, I have studied both subjects at the Master’s level and taught, for several years, both subjects at the college level.

Ok. Nothing like an appeal to authority to give everyone the proper perspective.

Organizations and businesses are egoist, which means their decisions are typically based on self interest and that this is just and proper. Profit is not a dirty word, for example. Capitalism was built on this, and it works well – to a point.

“Egoist” is an odd way of describing the profit motive. Businesses are, and should be, concerned about profit, as you point out. In doing so, in order to gain profit, businesses have to satisfy the wants and needs of others. They indeed are concerned about their own self-interest, but they can satisfy that self-interest only by serving others. Businesses don’t isolate and focus solely on themselves. They must focus on the customer in order to focus on themselves. That is, unless they get some special privilege from the government, which is the real problem most of the time.

The U.S. government rests on the foundation of the Constitution (life liberty and the pursuit of happiness and general welfare for all), and operates typically in a utilitarian manner, (for the common good), which means that actions should be directed toward achieving the greatest happiness for the greatest number of individuals, or all of society, and would seek a balance of justice, freedom and fairness. The Constitution (which was a revolutionary document crafted by visionaries) is predicated on these concepts.

You reference the Constitution and you make specific reference to “life liberty and the pursuit of happiness” (in Declaration of Independence), and then jump right to the General Welfare clause (in the Constitution) for justification for what is about to come next. On this point, I am worried. The General Welfare clause does not mean that anything goes as long as there is sufficient political support. If it meant this, why write the rest of the Constitution, which limits the power of government to specific enumerated powers?

Balancing these two views is the skill-set which makes great countries. Both are correct. One isn’t ‘right’ and one isn’t ‘wrong.’

Hang on there. Applying the General Welfare clause to mean “anything goes” is most definitely incorrect.

Governments in capitalistic countries seek to create a thriving business environment for a strong economy while balancing the need for regulation (environment, social, etc.), justice and fairness for all. But governments, according to Adam Smith’s perfect model, shouldn’t directly support or subsidize businesses, unless those businesses impact the country’s ability to feed and protect itself. Otherwise, failing businesses should be allowed to fail. Textiles? Let them go to Mexico and replace textiles with semi-conductors. Banks? Let them fail and be absorbed by other banks. Chrysler? Let it go the way of the wind and see what type of Phoenix, more beautiful and efficient, is re-born in its place. The recent bailout of the banks deemed to be TBTF (too big to fail) was more political response than reality. Other banks would have absorbed the failed ones, and the economy would have rebounded stronger for it. But many weren’t able to accept the short-term political and economic impact.

I agree, the bailouts were politically motivated. And the problems were originally caused by political policy as well.

That’s the way Adam Smith envisioned a perfect economic model. He was right. But we humans – and our congressmen/women - don’t want the textile industry to go away if we depend on it for food or political power. We don’t want Chrysler to fail if we work for Chrysler or within the supply chain. And so on. The egoist, some of which rail against government controls, etc., seeks assistance from the universalist when they need it (bail me out, subsidize me, build a wall around me, keep those mean Chinese away, increase tariffs, etc.). As expected. The egoist will always think of themselves first and last.

The “egoist” should be told “no” from the government. And in fact, the government shouldn’t have the power to even say “yes” … period. The fault is not in the profit motive, the fault is that special interests are able to get an audience with the government.

This is one reason why it is ultimately absurd to say that special interests (the businesses seeking unfair advantage), gaining government audience (creating a supposed “balance”), has anything to do with the General Welfare. Even if the Constitution could be read that way, businesses that are able to use the rule of law to gain a competitive advantage do the exact opposite - they sacrifice general welfare for special interests. If you are concerned about general welfare, then the first thing you should be want to do is remove the government from the market.

The egoist (businesses) also seeks assistance from the universalist (government) by lobbying for and demanding better roads, schools, airports, utilities, etc. to help its business thrive. So it comes off as more than a bit hypocritical for a business, a completely egoist enterprise, to think it can serve only who it wishes, especially when it has asked and gotten so much from the government – which has a competing interest of the common good for all – that has helped make their business thrive. And how many of you haters have or have had government backed school and/or home loans, lived in subsidized housing, were on food stamps, welfare, WIC, worker's comp, etc., etc.. To paint with such a broad brush about the mean ole violent government, especially when one has benefited from it so much, is hypocritical.

Some businesses do lobby government, but it is usually the ones that can’t compete in a free market and need the rule of law to provide some competitive advantage. Again, the government should say “Sorry, this is beyond our scope of power”. But not all businesses seek government. Most want government to get out of the way because it is government that is giving other businesses an unfair advantage.

On a side note: it is a bit absurd to think that private business can, without central planning, produce cities of tall skyscrapers, and yet, only the state could actually produce a flat slab of asphalt for cars to drive on.

But putting all that aside for a moment, and assuming that the government is the only entity that could produce roads, even though I do not agree, how does that buy away the private property rights of the business owner? Are you saying that because society as a whole (and this is debatable too) has decided to collectively impose a tax to produce roads, a tax that the business owner pays too, it means that a business owner actually doesn’t own the business? After all, only a business with private property rights (the right to do what they choose with their property) would be able to refuse to provide service to gay couple, a black person, a white person, a yellow person, polygamous groups, or anything else, for whatever reason. I would ask, by what principle do you claim private property rights can be undermined, and what are its limits? If you are to say that a business owner must serve a person he/she doesn’t want to serve because of being gay or black, what logically prevents you from forcing the business owner into servitude for any number of other reasons?

I have seen several other responses on this thread indicating that since the business services the public, the public aught to have some say in the matter. Since all businesses seek voluntary exchange with customers (the public), I guess that would mean that all businesses are not privately owned. With no clear cut dividing between what the “public” (i.e. government) can do and can’t do, there is no real private ownership.

Those businesses which discriminate against others, even or especially based on their own peronal relgious beliefs, are on very shaky ground when it comes to the U.S. egoist/universalist capitalistic environment and the U.S. Constitution. To try to hide behind religion is a sham, and the courts have consistently upheld the rights of all citizens when they faced such discrimination. Courts in state after state are ruling that discriminating against gays is unconstitutional and numerous anti-gay marriage laws have been overturned (many of these decisions are currently stayed based on appeal).

This is true. Many courts are on your side of the argument. I think they are wrong… Not in regards to the morality of discrimination, mind you. I completely agree with the sentiment. I think they are wrong on Constitutional grounds, on the grounds of eroding private property rights. If you are a business owner and you refuse service to a gay couple or to a black man or a yellow man, I feel you are a jerk. But even the greatest jerk in the world should not be made to enter involuntary servitude. Think about it, you are forcing, by law, someone to serve people he/she doesn’t want to serve. How is this any different than the slavery you wish to reject?

This “right” you are asserting is a “positive right”, which isn’t a right at all, it is an entitlement. Ultimately it will conflict with actual true “negative rights”. If you are unsure of the difference, this man explains it very well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXOEkj6Jz44

Follow it through logically: The gay couple in New Mexico, for example, were not just demanding a positive right to service. They were demanding a positive right to QUALITY service, equal service. It is logical that if we are going to force someone to service an individual or group he/she doesn’t want to serve, most likely, the performance will be much poorer than if the exchange were voluntary. So based on the current direction of all the courts, would the gay couple have yet another claim against the photographer? Would they be able to now claim that discrimination was still in play here because they received poor quality pictures? But it gets worse than that even. What would happen if the disgruntled photographer were to wear a T-shirt to wedding that states, “I don’t agree with gay weddings”? The wise court would have to step in again, because otherwise, surely there would be discrimination. Public accommodation must be satisfied. But what have we limited now?

Deal with it haters.

Nothing like poising the well to put everything in perspective.

Let’s try this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/antonio-darden/

Antonio Darden was a hair dresser for Governor Susana Martinez, also New Mexico. A few years back, he decided on ideological grounds to refuse service to the Governor. He was gay, and the Governor was opposed to same sex marriage. As you can see in the link, Antonio was praised. Nobody ever mentioned, “Hey, you have a business that serves the public, and your beliefs don’t matter, you still have to serve the Governor.” Both the photographer in NM and the hair dresser in NM exercised their private property rights.

Don’t get me wrong, the hair dresser was well within his rights to do that. But don’t you see the legal double standard? One person’s private property is undermined, the other is upheld. Based on what? On whether or not the person’s social views were in sync with the popular view. As mrhhome said “... it is a really, really bad precedent…”

MMM